The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 1 of an Open Debate—USC 2nd Amendment vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

USC Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

(1) as a well-armed populace, skilled in the use of all weapons, is essential for the security of the United States—in order to wage warfare against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that should threaten any of their rights—the right of the people to make, keep, bear and carry all manner of weapons of every kind, openly or concealed, shall not be infringed nor regulated;

(2) all men shall be justified in defending themselves, their wives, their children, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their homes, their lands, their country, their government, their rights, their privileges, their liberties, their religion and their all, and the all of their neighbors, even unto bloodshed, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded;

(3) because of the extreme danger posed to liberty, there shall be no standing army in times of peace, and military conscription shall be abolished forever;

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.1 vs. USC’s 2nd Amendment

Sec.2.1 creates a super-armed society with no regulation by any branch of government.  No permits or licenses can be required of the people.  They are unrestricted in all ways.  They can even make their own weapons.  Sec.2.1 covers every kind of weapon, including firearms and swords and everything else.  The purpose of this right is given as warfare, both to enemies foreign and domestic, to protect all the other rights of the people.

The 2nd Amendment creates a partially armed society, regulated by the Federal and State governments.  You need permits and licenses.  You are denied access to certain types of weapons and certain types of ammunition.  You cannot make your own weapons without permission and regulation.  The 2nd Amendment only covers firearms, not swords, so that no one can go around bearing a sharpened sword, etc.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is debated, some believing it is only to allow people to hunt, and others believing it is just for self-defense, and others believing it is for warfare.

Under the 2nd Amendment, the police state thrives.  Jack-booted thugs can and do regularly enter into homes in unannounced raids.  An agenda of gun control and regulation is promoted, with the end goal of disarming the people, all except for the police and other governmental authorities.  People actually do have their weapons (private property) routinely confiscated.  (Remember Katrina?)  People are also taught to rely upon the police for protection.  And criminals, who go after the weak and unarmed, are able to perform all manner of crimes.  All of this makes the 2nd Amendment extremely weak in its protections.

On the other hand, the super-armed society created by Sec.2.1 (and Sec.2.2) entirely does away with the police state.  Literally everyone is armed, or assumed to be armed, to the teeth.  The government is completely in the dark as to what weapons the people have, how many weapons they have, how much ammo they have, etc.  The people are free to conceal their weapons on their person, therefore, the only way to know is when they are bearing weapons openly, but that is not an accurate measurement, as a person may also have additional concealed weapons.  This unknown variable creates an environment unfavorable to a police state, and also to other types of criminals.  Simply put, the government authorities must at all times assume they are outmanned and outgunned by the citizens that surround them.  Everyone, essentially, becomes a potential threat with no clear advantage to the police state, because citizens live everywhere and thus, surround all the cops.  The authority of the police state is one of intimidation, the firearms of the police being a perceived threat.  “Do what I say or this firearm you see at my side is going to come out and point at you.”  But a super-armed society is not intimidated, neither by police nor by criminals.  On the contrary, a super-armed society intimidates all police and also all criminals.

Thus, crime increases under the 2nd Amendment, with a corresponding increase in the police state, to deal with all the crime, whereas crime will decrease and almost entirely be eliminated under Sec.2.1, with a corresponding decrease in the police state, until the police state disappears altogether.

In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment can be considered as an abridgment of the real weapons right.  It is better than nothing, but still falls short of the actual right.  Whereas Sec.2.1 is a full restoration of the weapons right held by the ancient people of this land, and also by those who lived at the beginning of time.  The restoration of this right fully secures the land from tyranny, both from non-governmental and governmental criminals.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.2 vs. USC’s nothing

That’s right, the USC has nothing in it for defense.  There is no right to defense in the United States Constitution, whatsoever.  Nevertheless, apart from the USC, there are federal and State laws that put forth a right of women to defend themselves from other women, and from men, and that put forth a right of men to defend themselves from other men, but not from women.

In fact, if any woman attacks a man, hitting him, slapping him, pulling his hair, spitting on him, kicking him, pushing him, throwing his property, verbally insulting him, destroying his property, and so on, even publicly, first of all, no one would help the man out (not even off-duty cops), secondly, the men in the area would think the man was a wimp, allowing himself to get beaten up by a girl, and third, some of the women in the area would cheer, and all of the women would think that the man had the beating coming to him and that he must be at fault (even though they have no idea of the circumstances.)

But if that man were to attempt to defend himself against her, even if it was only to restrain her from hitting him again, all the men in the area who are what are known as white knights would immediately jump to the woman’s defense and start pounding on the man, because of the rule they were taught by their single, or separated or divorced mothers, (and even some of their fathers), namely, that it is always wrong to hit a woman.  He defending himself against her attack would cause all to view him as a monster and as “not a man.”  Should the cops be called, they would arrest him, and not her, even though she attacked him and he only defended himself, and he would be the one going to jail.  Thus, not only society says that a man does not have a right to defend himself against a woman, but also the law says so.  Think I’m wrong?  Watch this:

Notice that in the video the off-duty cop didn’t help him.  Also notice that the psychology professor says, “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”

Now, in olden times and more particularly in ancient times (and I am writing here according to my understanding), a man had a right to defend himself against all persons, even women.  Not only did he have a right to defend his person, but also his honor, against attacks, be they verbal or physical.  Thus, when a man was verbally insulted or abused, and I don’t mean an argument or difference of opinion or a debate, but when words were used to insult and abuse the man, the man felt pain, for his honor was under a humiliating attack and thus the insults were considered fighting words.  In other words, although only words were used, it was nevertheless considered a fight.  Such a man had three options.  If he were a Christian saint, then he might simply suffer the persecution (what we today would call harassment) and just turn the other cheek, and no matter how many words he was afflicted with, he would not retaliate in kind.  Nevertheless, he had the right to defend his honor, and his second option was to retaliate in kind, afflicting verbal insults upon the attacker, so that his enemy would become humiliated, too, and thus, he might “win the fight” by getting the public observers to side with him as the winner.  But there was also a third option, and that was to take it to the next level, and to physically stop the attacker from continuing to insult and abuse him verbally.  This was perfectly acceptable in the ancient world, and also in olden times, because if a man was so brash as to insult another man, then he had to be able to deal with the consequences of his actions, which might lead to a physical altercation, according to the right of the man attacked to defend himself and his honor.  In other words, the right of a man to defend his honor from verbal abuse, even physically, was universally recognized.  This was the prerogative of a man.

Anciently (and also in olden times), it was unmanly for a man to allow another man to verbally abuse him, without defending oneself, either verbally or physically.  Thus, when insults were thrown about by men, it might lead to a duel of pistols or a clash of swords, to the wounding or death of one of them, for a man’s honor was everything to him and it was to be defended, at all cost.  But over time, pistol duels were outlawed, as well as gunfights and sword fights.  Now, all that is left, legally, is fisticuffs, and even that comes with a penalty from the law.

Anciently, if any woman were to verbally assault a man’s honor, insulting and abusing him with words, she “crossed the line” into man’s territory, for women were to act as women and men were to act as men.  Men could insult a man, and then they would have to face the consequences, but women were not expected or allowed to act as men and insult men, but if they did, they were always treated with the very same treatment that other men received, except with one difference.  This similar treatment of women, by men, when the women acted as men, put a permanent stop to all women abusing men, either verbally or physically.

It is a universal fact that men are mightier in every way than women.  An average man put into a fair fight with an average woman, and neither of them pulling their punches, would result in either the critical wounding or death of the female.  All females crumple under male power.  The Hollywood myth of the dominant, strong female that can kick a man’s butt is merely a clever fiction meant to deceive the masses.  You could put 50 females in a line, each one facing that man in a fair fist fight, and that man would destroy each and every female, from the first to the last.  The male body and his testosterone fueled muscles gives almost god-like strength to him, or at least, that is what it seems like to any female who has ever been hit hard by a male.  All females, once hit hard by a male, cease their bickering.

Now, the ancients knew this, and they knew that male strength is much too powerful to be used in its full capacity, upon females, as it was used upon male antagonists, but they also knew that unless a woman is checked by male power, she would continue to verbally and physically assault and abuse men, for this is the nature of unchecked women.  So, the ancient solution was to use the closed hand (the fist) against males and the open hand (the palm slap) against women.  The muscles on the palm of the hand softened the blow, so that even though the slap was delivered in a hard manner, so as to make a point, it was not enough to destroy the woman.  To the woman on the receiving end, it still felt like a brick wall had fallen on top of her, and the realization that this was only a slap, caused every woman to respect, submit to, and not fight, male power and authority.  In other words, the ancient women, so checked, fully respected the men around them, once they felt just what kind of god-like power and strength God had endowed to the males of the species.

Now, this was the way of the ancients, according to their right of defense, and this practice created peace between the sexes, for the women, once checked, submitted to the men and did not fight them, and the men, for their part, did not initiate much violence towards women, because their women were mostly submissive.  Violence towards men by women was virtually non-existent, and the little insulting words thrown about by women were quickly stopped by this hard slapping check by the men.  This was, for the most part, the extent of the domestic violence.

Domestic violence, however, in modern times, is widespread.  Women hide behind, and promote, the false teaching of “men should never hit women” in order to get away with hitting and otherwise abusing men.  And then the same statistics show up, namely, that women initiate the lion’s share of the violence and arguments and verbal abuse, except that they are never checked, because the law will throw a man into jail if he makes the attempt to put his woman in her place.  This causes pent up anger in the emasculated males, as the abuse continues, until in some males, instead of a checking slap that would have put an abrupt end to the female-initiated violence, we get an explosive reaction that destroys the female.  In other words, the males that do such violence actually end up looking upon these women as fully male and so exert full male power at them, destroying them.

Now, I will not expound the heart of the matter in this post, for that is not the topic.  Suffice it to say that devilish forces have removed the ancient rights of men to defend themselves and their honor from all persons, including from women, and thus, in this emasculated state, the prophecy of Isaiah is brought to pass:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.  (Isaiah 3:12)

Thus, the devil has turned the ancient order upside down.  But the NAC turns it right-side up again, through restoration, by restoring the ancient rights of man to defend himself from all persons.

From all persons

Remember those jack-booted thugs dressed in the garb of the State’s authority?  Well, Sec.2.2 allows citizens to defend themselves and their property, too, against all those unannounced raids.  Instead of a man opening fire on DEA agents raiding his house and then going to prison, the man would be set free, for he was merely exercising his right.  This curtails all unlawful encroachments, no matter where they originate.  Men are re-empowered to defend their all, against all, and the police state suddenly cowers before all the masculine power the State stole from the men.  Raids will stop.  Girlfriends and wives destroying a man’s property because they are upset with him, without any consequences, will stop.  Even conflict in general will largely cease, because a super-armed society in conjunction with the right to defend creates a powder-keg of masculine power that is unfavorable to conflict.  In other words, civility becomes the societal law, because any conflict can potentially escalate into great bodily harm or even death.  Contentious persons, of both sexes, will cease their contention quite rapidly, or be eliminated.  It just isn’t wise to be contentious in such a society.

Bad cops also will leave the police force, or never enter it to begin with.  Cops need to be extra kind and polite and considerate and careful not to trample on people’s rights when dealing with super-armed citizens who have a right to defend their all against all persons from encroachments.  Any infringement by a cop upon a citizen may not make it to the judge.  This will cause only the manliest and pleasantest of men to take the position of police officer, because of the unfavorable environment to nervous and contentious men.  A cop’s main job in such an environment would be to show up and protect the nabbed criminal from the citizens who have caught him in the act of the crime and have him pinned down at gun or sword point.  The citizens themselves would be a sort of unofficial police force, for they are empowered to protect the all of their neighbors, too.


A man can protect his all under Sec.2.2.  This may be interpreted to include his unborn fetuses.  NAC Article X., Section 5 reads:

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

This negates Roe vs. Wade and makes the legality of abortion a States issue.  Nevertheless, Section 10 of the same Article says,

These articles of Confederation, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united States in Congress assembled, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws or Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, the States will be bound to the NAC.  Sec. 2.2 in conjunction with Article III. Section 2 may make a case for permission from the father being necessary before an abortion can be legally performed:

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State, shall have power to raise up a king over men, nor to exert kingly authority over them or their house, for it is not right to esteem one flesh above another, or that one man shall think himself above another, but every man alone shall bear rule in his own house; and as that which is governed by law is also preserved by law, whereas that which breaks a law, and abides not by law, but seeks to become a law unto itself, cannot be preserved by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment, every man shall have power to set his house in order, having his children and house in subjection to him alone with all gravity, even as unto a king, according to the bounds and conditions of his law, that this shall be a land of liberty, and that every man shall enjoy his rights and privileges alike, and that every man shall set in order his family, and that every man shall bear his part.

Certainly that fetus could be considered part of the “all” of a man, and also part of his family.  These things will be worked out in the courts, but the NAC provides a legal basis for the reproductive right of the father to extend its manly protection over his unborn offspring. And if the courts rule in this very way, that the father’s right to defend his all extends to his fetuses, then all men in this country can be empowered to save all these children, regardless of the legality of abortion in any State.  Additionally, even if a woman tries to circumvent the law’s requirement of a father’s permission for abortion, by going to an illegal clinic, the father is still empowered to defend that unborn life, his all, even unto bloodshed, if you get my drift.  This will create a very unfavorable environment for illegal abortion practitioners, as they may be faced with an irate and fully armed father seeking to protect his unborn young.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.3 vs. USC’s nothing

Once again, the Constitution comes up flat.  The USC allows for a standing army.  And for military conscription.  But the NAC disallows both.

Now, it may not be readily apparent just how important these three items are (Section 2.1-2.3) but together, they put a shackle on the State and any would-be tyrants in it.  Despots and dictators and would-be tyrants need some things in order to tyrannize a populace.  They need a standing army during peacetime.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need military conscription, so as to rapidly expand their army by forcing men to fight for them.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the populace either fully disarmed or mostly disarmed, or at least regulated to the point where they could fully disarm them at some point through such regulations.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the men, representing the masculine power of the population, to be emasculated to the point that they can no longer defend themselves, legally, against anyone, but must rely upon the police and other armed State officials, for their defense and protection.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need to have a police state in place, to intimidate and threaten the populace into submission.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.

So, the USC supports tyranny, or allows it to flourish, while the NAC destroys it.  Just this little bit of the NAC proves that the NAC is superior in every way to the USC, but I will go over other NAC sections in future posts.  Feel free to disagree or debate on any point mentioned in this post.  This is, after all, an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist


  1. More on the right to defend against women

    The ancients did not believe in equal treatment of the sexes*, but believed in treating men as men, and women as women. Thus, women were afforded certain privileges, such as not fighting in wars, and also in other ways were treated differently. But merely being female did not give them access to the different treatment. To be treated as a woman, you had to 1) be female and 2) act womanly.**

    It was not considered womanly to verbally insult a man or attack him physically. Such behavior was considered manly, because it was considered a challenge to combat, which is what only men did. Any man who was challenged to combat, whether verbally or physically, had a right to meet the challenge (a right to defend), either verbally or even physically. Meeting the challenge was considered manly. Even if a man lost the combat, the mere fact that he met it showed he was a man, and more especially if the challenger was the stronger man.

    The men who allowed other men to insult them verbally, or to smite them physically, without defending their honor or person, were considered unmanly, because it was assumed such men let fear overpower them into non-action (into cowardice). However, an even more cowardly action was when a woman verbally insulted or physically abused a man, and the man did nothing to stop her. As all the ancients understood just how weak women were in comparison to virtually any man, it was inconceivable for a man to fear a woman. Also, in the eyes of the ancients, a woman that verbally insulted or physically abused a man, ceased to be a woman and became, in essence, a man, necessitating that she be treated as such. Yet she was still female, so the blow had to be softened.

    It was not only the right of a man to defend himself and his honor against such a woman, but also it was considered a duty he owed to society to put her back into her place, meaning that she was to be reminded that she was expected to act as a woman and not as a man. This duty was performed by giving her a taste of the man’s world, even a taste of what it feels like to be treated as a man, via the hard checking slap.*** The man who did not perform this was considered derelict in his duty, and also unmanly. If he did not check her out of fear (cowardice) of the repercussions she might bring upon him, this was considered the very height of cowardice and unmanliness. Such men were considered the very scum of the earth, unworthy to be called men, despite their male organs.

    Now, violence against womanly women, initiated by men, was never condoned and was always looked down upon, (except during times of great wickedness), because this was seen as the strong taking advantage of the weak, and thus unmanly. It was manly for a strong man to challenge another strong man, or for a weak man to challenge a strong man, but not for the strong to prey on the weak. Criminals were viewed as corrupt men for this very reason. They preyed solely on the weak like unmanly cowards.

    The ancient view and the modern view, then, are at odds with each other. Modern man say it is unmanly for a man to strike a woman who is acting as a man (by verbally insulting or physically abusing a man), while the ancients said it was unmanly for a man to allow a woman, who was acting as a man, to continue acting as such. Who is right and who is wrong? Which view is correct? The ancient view is correct. But the State prohibits men from setting things straight, so the State must go. And the NAC will take care of the State. But even after the NAC is installed, men must be re-educated in the ways of the ancients. They must be taught to let go of the false idea that there is never any justification in hitting a woman, and learn to check their women when they act like men.

    Neither does the LDS Church believe in equal treatment of the sexes. This is why every General Authority has opposed the Equal Rights Amendment ever since it appeared.

    The transgender agenda being pushed on the world is to treat a man as a woman if he dresses and acts as a woman, and has breast implants, and takes female hormones, and calls himself by a female name, and refers to himself as a female. This view, then, favors actions (acting as a woman) over biology (femaleness). But there is also a reverse agenda in which females are expected to be treated differently than men (i.e., “don’t hit females ever”) even if they act like men. This agenda favors biology over actions.

    The ancients had a two-step process: female biology + feminine behavior merited full feminine treatment (treatment as a woman), while male biology + masculine behavior merited full masculine treatment (treatment as a man). If a person did not pass muster, he or she was not afforded the privilege of full treatment. In other words, the biology was kept as the base (for biology was determined by God, not man) and the man or woman was treated as less than whatever his or her biology was.

    The hard checking slap is based on the “annoying fly” principle. Think of a fly buzzing around your face and landing on your nose and eye. Instinctively, you do not try to kill it, but merely swat it away, hoping it gets the message that you are a lot bigger than it is and that you can easily destroy it, so “stop bothering me.”

  2. Some of the points raised in this post conflict with feminism. Growing up Mormon (from age 9 onward, at least), I remember that Mormons back then were taught by certain church leaders that modern feminism had roots in communism. Some books on this were written, and I’ve read some of them. But then the voices saying these things died out (because these leaders died) and Mormon leaders stopped referring to feminism, or tying it, to communism propaganda. I suppose that newer Mormons, (younger than me, at least), probably have no idea what I’m talking about. So, I wondered whether anyone anywhere was still making such a claim in Mormon circles. And I did an Internet search, and lo and behold! I found an article, but it doesn’t come from a Mormon. Mormon voices, which were the first and really the only ones to raise the warning, have been completely silenced.

    Communists Conceived Women’s Liberation Movement March 15, 2015

    I have been almost entirely silent on these topics of feminism and also communism. Feminism has gone mainstream and communism is outdated, right? Besides, this blog has mostly dealt with theology and I’ve never had the inclination to give my full understandings here of certain other things. But I have often wondered what kind of reaction this blog would get if I were to unfold more than just theology here? Anyway, it was nice to see that someone still was keeping the old, forgotten (but not by me) Mormon research up because I have a sneaky suspicion, to use the Transformers phrase, that there is much “more than meets the eye” to current society. Perhaps one day I will unfold it all…

  3. As a follow-up to my communism comment, it is my understanding that at some point all such conspiracies and secret combinations will be completely uncovered by the power of God, even before the Second Coming. Names, dates, actions, words, plans, etc., will all be given by revelation and released publicly, exposing the secret combination in its entirety, in fulfillment of 2 Nephi 27:27:

    And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say:

    Who seeth us, and who knoweth us?

    And they also say:

    Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay.

    But behold,

    I will show unto them,

    saith the Lord of Hosts,

    that I know all their works.

    For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?

  4. I am going to segue this topic (of the first comment) into something else. Anciently, women were not contentious, like women of today, neither did they rebel against the men. This was due to various reasons, but it was mainly the practice of the checking slap that put a stop to contention in women. Women still complained, as is their nature, but they bit their lips and held their tongues when they got the temptation to fight a man verbally or physically. Children, also, were not contentious, due to this same practice (applied to children). The strength of the father, once felt, created admiration in both the children and their mother. The only exception to this rule was in the sons, when they began to grow up and develop manly strength themselves. Then some sons would begin to rebel.

    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

    Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

    And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

    And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

    For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)

    Under the law of Moses, a rebellious son (not a daughter) was to be chastened, which would consist first of a formal verbal rebuke, which required repentance on the part of the child, but if the child didn’t repent, then a physical rebuke was given, and if the child still didn’t turn from his rebellious ways, then the father and the mother, as two witnesses, (fulfilling the law of witnesses), had to condemn him to death, by their testimony before the elders, who would have to exact the penalty via stoning* by the men of the city. The parents (and the elders and city men) were required to perform this duty and responsibility. In other words, this was a commandment of God. By the time of Jesus’ ministry, the Jews no longer performed their parental duty of cutting off the rebellious sons out of Israel by parental testimony, a judgment of the elders and a stoning by the city men. (See Matt. 15:1-9 and JST Mark 7:1-13)

    Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

    Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

    But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

    For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

    But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

    And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

    Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

    This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

    But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:1-9)

    Then came together unto him, the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

    And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say with unwashen) hands, they found fault.

    For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash hands oft, eat not; holding the tradition of the elders.

    And when they come from the market, except they wash their bodies, they eat not.

    And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.

    And the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the traditions of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

    He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men.

    For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men; the washing of pots and of cups; and many other such like things ye do.

    And he said unto them, Yea, altogether ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

    Full will is it written of you, by the prophets whom ye have rejected.

    They testified these things of a truth, and their blood shall be upon you.

    Ye have kept not the ordinances of God; for Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death of the transgressor, as it is written in your law; but ye keep not the law.

    Ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he is of age. And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered; and many such like things do ye. (JST Mark 7:1-13)

    This parental power over life and death, for their children, created a fear in the children which allowed even rebellious sons to repent, for none of them desired to die. The application of the law, as stated, was a check upon the rebellious. Once the people stopped applying the law, the rebellious sons, after being physically chastened, still didn’t repent, for there would be no further penalties. in other words, it became this situation:

    Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

    And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin. (Alma 42:19-20)

    As there were no more consequences to rebellion, and as the sons were now large enough and strong enough, to the point that their father’s physical chastisement didn’t hurt so badly or do much damage, they were free to rebel without fear of repercussions. This created a rebellious infection in all male children, when they got to a certain age, causing the whole society to wax in iniquity. But the law only applied to sons, not daughters, because a rebellious daughter, once rebuked, often repented, and if she did not repent, then the physical chastisement that would follow, would inevitably cause her to submit to parental authority, no matter how old she got. Because she was female, the application of male strength and power to her, was too much of an unpleasant experience to continue to fight and resist and defy. So there was no death penalty law needed for rebellious daughters, only for rebellious sons, because of the more powerful manly strength they would begin to develop as they got older, that weakened the impact of any physical chastisement. Only the real threat of death checked the rebellious sons. In the case of the rebellious daughters of Ishmael (see 1 Ne. 7:6), they were relying upon the masculine power of Laman and Lemuel and their two brothers (4 men total) to combat the parental authority of Ishmael and his wife, and also Nephi and Sam (3 men total). Without these 4 rebellious men to support them in their rebellion against their father, and to defy their father’s authority, they would have gotten the tarnation slapped out of them and their rebellion would have been short-lived. Anytime parental authority is subverted in this way, by outside persons (Laman and Lemuel), or by inside persons, (the sons of Ishmael), within a family, so that persons within a family are supported in their rebellions against either both parents, or against one parent (for example, supporting a wife and children in their rebellion against the father), this is a huge sin, for all involved, for this is the very sin that Lucifer** did, and caused the one-third to do, against our heavenly Father. Thus, the fifth commandment

    Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    is the whole of the gospel law, and concerns inheritances.

    …that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    If you honor (obey and respect) firstly the father and secondly the mother, you will inherit. If you dishonor (disobey and disrespect) firstly the father and secondly the mother, you disinherit yourself. To rebel, then, is to disinherit yourself. This is why the scriptures say that the rebellious do not, or will not, inherit. When our children are sealed to us, this sealing ordinance deals with inheritance (for the next life). The sealing of children to fathers is an ordinance of exaltation, and not of salvation. It allows the child to have access to exaltation if the father and mother are honored, and all other commandments are obeyed. Just as husbands will call forth their wives at the last day, so fathers will call forth their children who have honored them. A child that rebelled in mortality will not be called forth, despite the sealing. Such a child loses both the mortal inheritance and the inheritance of exaltation. A father cannot claim such a child, nor call him forth. As a result, the sealing is undone by rebellion. Thus what is sealed on earth, is sealed in heaven, and remains sealed by honoring father and mother (for child-to-father sealings), but through rebellion both the earthly and heavenly seals become unsealed. The Lord, then, will not claim a child, at the last day, whose father also does not claim him as a child. Rebellion in children, then, is a sin of disinheritance, even the loss of all you might have received. This, then, was the reason for the death penalty deterrent for sons in the law of Moses. Unless a peson honored their mortal father and mother, they had zero chance at receiving an exaltation in the next life. This also was the reason why fathers were endowed with masculine strength and power, and authority to use it upon their families, in chastisements, in order to put a stop to the sin of rebellion.

    The emasculation of a father’s authority over his children, caused by the police, the judges, the lawmakers, and others in society who promote and sustain such emasculation, is creating a society of criminals, on purpose, so that justification for the continual expansion of the police state exists. As mothers have no power to deal with rebellious sons alone, it is up to the father’s masculine strength, power and authority to check the children, and more especially the sons. If there is no check, the wayward males cease respecting no only parental authority, but also all authority, including governmental authority and God’s authority, leading them towards a life of crime and wickedness. The police state being a main tool of all authoritarian regimes, the increase of crime among the masses is what conspiring would-be tyrants are desiring and planning and working towards, to bring society to its knees, that they will give up all their rights and privileges just to have security and safety from crime. The NAC, though, delivers both security and safety, while also maintaining rights and privileges, destroying both the police state and the work of the conspiracy. It, therefore, is the best solution.

    *This being symbolic of Christ, for Christ is the stone, and on whomsoever this stone falls, shall be ground to powder, as the scripture says. Thus, Christ will destroy the rebellious.

    **The war in heaven was initiated by a rebellious son, whose immortal spirit could not be “physically” chastised. He could be verbally rebuked, but if that didn’t work to cause him to repent, the only other option was death, even spiritual death. Lucifer may have gambled that as he was a literal son, and God was his Father, and was eternally good, that surely He would not kill His own offspring. But God enacted the penalty anyway, and Lucifer and the one-third spiritually died. This shows that the Deuteronomy scripture followed the heavenly pattern. Also, many think of Jesus as loving and not vindictive like the God of the Old Testament, but the fact that He verbally chastised and rebuked the Jews for not executing rebellious sons shows that Jesus was no different than the God of the Old Testament. It also shows that the sin of rebellion is like unto murder, except that instead of murdering another, you murder yourself. Both sins require the death penalty (at some point). Latter-day saints like to say that Lucifer’s sin was pride, but he wasn’t cut off for pride, he was cut off for rebellion. Lucifer could think or believe or feel as pridefully as he wanted, and remain in heaven, but when that pride led him to an action: the sin of rebellion, that is when the law of God took hold of him.

  5. I came across a video yesterday which illustrates precisely what I’m talking about regarding the right to defend against all people, even someone who is weaker or smaller than you. The Nephites were a whole lot stronger than the Lamanites were, for they had the strength of the Lord and the Lamanites didn’t, but the Lord still told them to defend themselves, even unto bloodshed, against their enemies. The weakness or littleness of an attacker does not negate the right to defend. This video was first posted on YouTube, but then got over a million views, apparently. One or more of those viewers were offended by it and flagged it as hate speech. Eventually, YouTube censored it, so the guy who made it posted it, instead, on his Facebook account. WARNING: it contains lots of profanity and a good deal of violence, so if you can’t handle such things, don’t click:

    Women Get a Taste of the Gender Equality They’ve Always Wanted

    I am bringing this video up (and linking it here) because it illustrates a point I tried to make in the above post. One of the reasons why I put some of the things I did in the NAC was because I foresaw a bloodbath in our future, and I wanted to avert it. The conspirators who are currently emasculating men, via the State, do not care about this bit that I wrote in the post above:

    This causes pent up anger in the emasculated males, as the abuse continues, until in some males, instead of a checking slap that would have put an abrupt end to the female-initiated violence, we get an explosive reaction that destroys the female. In other words, the males that do such violence actually end up looking upon these women as fully male and so exert full male power at them, destroying them.

    The conspirators believe that any masculine explosions that occur via all this emasculation can and will be handled by their police state. They are correct. If the men are disarmed and the police state continues its buildup, the police state will be able to handle the exploding men. But there will be many casualties.

    I foresaw, in particular, that the greatest number of casualties would be among women, for the men, venting their anger, would unleash it at the wrong foe: the women, and there would be a bloodbath, as the males of the species would en mass kill all the women (or seek to do so). The conspirators see this as an end result, too, but they don’t care about that. But I do. I don’t want the women killed off, nor do I want the men imprisoned. This chain of events, though, can be averted. The future bloodbath that I see can be entirely avoided, by installing the NAC.

    I wrote some years ago, on someone else’s blog, I think, that the Lord intends to change things up by sending things people never considered, or looked for, or expected, onto the scene. Things out of left field, so to speak. I also wrote that the powers that be fear only one thing: a lone wolf. Someone operating out of their controlled pack, introducing new things that they don’t expect and can’t properly counter, because they are variables never planned for.

    The NAC fits this bill perfectly, as an unexpected variable that is introduced suddenly through non-standard channels. If it, or something like it, goes “viral,” it has the potential of not just reducing the power centers of the controlling minority, but of entirely eliminating them and re-empowering the masses.

  6. Also stated in the above post, there is a certain nervousness that police officers will experience in the super-armed society that the NAC creates, because if they are surrounded by armed citizens, meaning that the citizens around them are openly armed, then that gives them a tactical disadvantage if they have to confront said citizens over any thing. This makes for very pleasant police officers who are careful not to infringe upon the rights of the citizens. But there is another benefit, too, and that is to females.

    The females of the species are, or will be, even more nervous than police officers, by all the brandished weapons being carried about by citizens. This creates a sense of insecurity in females, even if they themselves are armed.

    It is widely believed that females desire security over freedom, whereas males desire freedom over security. When a female feels insecure she will run to the first person she sees that will make her feel secure again, or take away her insecurity. In a super-armed society, despite the security of the society being assured by all the weapons, the females of that society will, nonetheless, feel insecure. This is when the desire to be and feel protected by masculine power comes out in females.

    So, it is only partially true that females need to feel secure, to feel happy. The other half of that equation is the need to feel insecure. If there is a sea of sameness, a feeling of security all the time, the females no longer crave that feeling of being protected by masculine power. The NAC’s super-armed society will cause all females to gravitate back to the men, to seek out masculine protection, because of the ever pervasive feeling of insecurity, because of the sea of guns and weapons the NAC creates. Thus, relations between men and women will improve under the NAC, just because of this one single point. Women will want to be “under the protection” of some man, at all times.

    This state of insecurity/security for females is a match for the Nephites, whose wives were ultra feminine and under a constant state of insecurity due to a Lamanite invasion at any moment. The men were necessary for their very survival and the men gave them a sense of security, even though there were enemies who wanted to murder them just beyond their borders. The ever-present feeling of danger caused Nephite women to cleave unto their men like glue, to feel secure and protected by them. The NAC will create a similar environment, not through an ever-present danger of enemy invasion, but through the super-arming of society.

  7. (2) all men shall be justified in defending themselves, their wives, their children, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their homes, their lands, their country, their government, their rights, their privileges, their liberties, their religion and their all, and the all of their neighbors, even unto bloodshed, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded;

    I suppose “their all” could also include their honor. Perhaps this section of the NAC could bring back duelling:

    Man Knowledge: An Affair of Honor – The Duel


    The practice was also thought to increase civility throughout society. To avoid being challenged to the duel, gentlemen were careful not to insult or slight others.

    That is basically what I said about the super-armed society encouraging politeness and civility.

  8. Here is another feminism/communism page I found:

    Feminism Is Communism

  9. Here is the first “Mormon” (it wasn’t written by a Mormon, but it was recommended by ETB) book I ever read (I think) about “conspiracy.” I read this when I was between the ages of 14 and 18. This is posted as a free PDF file:

    None Dare Call It Conspiracy

  10. I like what I’ve read here. I think it needs a tweak or two, just to leave no wiggle room in spots. I’ve been working on a book about how we fix the country, still in research mode, but this document may well be the basis of the solution I propose. I hope that’s cool, as you’ve indicated it is in a previous post. A thought to get this more into the public sphere: set up either a weekly conference call, via, or maybe a live broadcast on Spreecast, and invite folks via Facebook and other social media. I have a connection to an internet radio show as well and could hook you up. I have my own freeconferencepro line we could use if you wish.

    Bill Wierzbinski — Milwaukee

  11. I think it needs a tweak or two, just to leave no wiggle room in spots.

    Where are the spots? I want this as perfect as can be, so if you see some weakness somewhere, let me know.

    …this document may well be the basis of the solution I propose. I hope that’s cool, as you’ve indicated it is in a previous post.

    Be my guest. As for spreading the word, I have to keep myself anonymous, for now, so me promoting this thing by voice or video is out. Anyone else, though, is welcome to do it. As I believe that debate will cause people to side with the NAC, I created a NAC Debates WordPress blog as a central spot for people to find all the various NAC debates going on both online and offline around the country, but I have yet to tell anyone about it. (Well, now I’m telling about it…)

    Although I am the author of the NAC, I don’t think it really matters what I think about it, or how I interpret it, (or even who I am.) Those who read it, and the judges who judge by it, will be the ones that determine what it means. Also, I believe that the NAC should be a people’s movement, without a central figure guiding its installment. Me getting out there in the public will focus the media attention on me, and not on the NAC, where it needs to be. Opponents will then just attack the messenger (me) and not the message (the NAC.) I don’t want to detract from the message in any way. So, I think it is wiser for people who promote the NAC to say, when inevitably asked who wrote it, “No one knows,” and then get right back to talking about the NAC points.

  12. Thanks for your timely response, and for the blessing of using this in my book. I appreciate it, and also your openness to making the document better than it already is. There are just a few fixes that are in spots where the document is not specific enough, not detailed enough. I will discuss those after I have had more time to study in detail, so I can better assist you there. My main issue is in your Constitutional amendment to abolish the current government. This most definitely needs a lot more specificity. It should say that not just the Constitution is abolished, but that all laws, regulations and enforcement/compliance offices and agencies of the former government are abolished, and that all land currently owned by the government is returned to the states in which said land is located, and that the people, who have been pledged without their consent as chattel for the debts of the former government are released from that bondage. Also, the new government should declare the old one as being bankrupt, but held harmless, in that regard, as they no longer have the assets with which to pay those debts. What the creditors do to them is up to the creditors.

  13. My main issue is in your Constitutional amendment to abolish the current government. This most definitely needs a lot more specificity. It should say that not just the Constitution is abolished, but that all laws, regulations and enforcement/compliance offices and agencies of the former government are abolished,

    Okay, so looking over the amendment again, it says:

    In any given year in which the citizens of a majority of the states vote in favor of abolishment, Constitutional authority and jurisdiction shall be immediately revoked in said majority states.

    Would not revoked Constitutional authority and jurisdiction not also abolish “all (Constitutional) laws, regulations and enforcement/compliance offices and agencies”? I think of the British government. When we abolished British rule, (by force of arms,) were not all British laws, regulations and enforcement/compliance offices and agencies over the States also abolished, meaning they were rendered powerless?

    …and that all land currently owned by the government is returned to the states in which said land is located,…

    Again, when we parted with the British Empire, land which was under the control of the British government and on American soil, did it not revert to the States upon whose land it stood? How could an abolished government’s former holdings upon State soil not revert to the States upon abolishment? Who could claim it? Surely not the former national government, which is now abolished. So, how could it not revert to the States?

    …and that the people, who have been pledged without their consent as chattel for the debts of the former government are released from that bondage.

    Again, did the American people owe the British government money after the Revolutionary War? Were we still in debt to them? I ask, because I don’t know. I’d have to look up the history. But it doesn’t seem possible that upon abolishment of a government, that the people can still be held responsible for the debts of the former government. Is there historical precedent for such a thing? Also, does not the wording “Constitutional authority and jurisdiction shall be immediately revoked” also apply to the jurisdiction of Constitutional debts?

    Also, the new government should declare the old one as being bankrupt, but held harmless, in that regard, as they no longer have the assets with which to pay those debts. What the creditors do to them is up to the creditors.

    Are you still speaking of the amendment in this part? Or are you referring to the NAC? If you are referring to the amendment, it says:

    If the vote is, instead, to replace the Constitution with some other form of government, all the aforementioned majority states shall immediately be bound by the newly adopted form.

    So, the new form, whatever that is, will have the language it will have to deal with the debts of the former Constitutional government, just as the NAC does in

    Article XI: Section 2. None of the obligations of the former national government under the United States Constitution shall transfer to the united States in Congress assembled under these articles of Confederation; and thus this Confederacy shall begin and remain debt-free, with no entangling alliances or any other obligations of the former national government; and all records of such obligations to the people of the States shall be turned over to their respective States, which are not obligated to fulfill them, but may, if they so choose; and all such obligations to foreign entities shall be null and void.

  14. I see all of your points. However, I believe that it is important that one should not assume people will all see the same thing on the page. This is why there must be detailed specificity.

    I am coming at this as a former president and delegate of the Assembly of the Delegates of the united states of America, as amended A.D. 1791. Early in the old group we wrote a declaration that we were planning to put out there similar to what you are doing, but based on the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Restore America Plan (aka TRAP) stymied us by sending something similar to the members of Congress and the Courts and the White House.

    Later on, I got involved with the Union States Project. I had to get out of there because of too much division and strife, caused by no order, and no leadership, really. This is why somebody needs to take the ball and run with this. Somebody needs to step up. I first heard of this quite by accident, having seen a link to it in a post on Tea Party Nation. I don’t know whether or not it’s me that needs to do this, or if I should yet. I am curious as to why you need to remain in the shadows on this? Given that this Catholic found this on an LDS blog site (nothing against y’all, my uncle is one of you), I wonder if you are in trouble with your church, or in trouble with the government. Otherwise, I can’t see you not taking the lead on this. Thoughts?

  15. I am a former Catholic (still on the books, I guess) converted to Mormonism. My anonymity deals with the Mormon church. Much of what I write on this blog is LDS theology, and I have found that whenever I discuss my religious (or any other views) publicly to fellow LDS members (or anyone, really), people tend to want to pick up chairs and throw them at me. Mormons don’t like new stuff they never thought of coming from someone who is not one of their General Authorities. So, anonymity allows people to consider the information without bias, without linking it to me. I am not in trouble with the law or government, but the NAC, if it is successful, will get the Powers That Be focused on whatever can take it down, including who its author is. At some point, I suppose, I will reveal who I am, but for now it is not expedient.

    I will consider what you wrote about the amendment. One thing about constitutional amendments is that they go through extensive debating before being voted on by Congress. I have no problem with being more specific in the amendment, but let’s see if people who read it get confused over it. In other words, let’s see if the general consensus is that it needs to be more specific.

    Btw, the amendment is not the important thing in this. It is simply a means to an end. It should not be pushed at the front, at all. Only the NAC should be promoted. Only when the NAC has convinced a majority of Americans to vote for it, should people’s attention turn to the amendment. The reason is that the amendment can be used for good and bad by TPTB. In other words, I take a conspiratorial view of things. I believe there are conspiring men trying to consolidate all power into a few hands, to create a totalitarian state. The NAC is not, yet, on their radar. It has just been released, after all. When people start talking about it, reading it, sharing it, debating it, discussing it, etc., eventually there will be a “blip” on their radar screens. Once they read the NAC, these conspiring men will give it a top priority threat assessment for their centers of power. It will need to be stopped, and fast. They have several options available. One is to use the amendment attached to the NAC, push it through fast, before there is a majority of Americans for the NAC, and then install some totalitarian government that will make it impossible for the NAC to become law. So, the amendment should be all but completely downplayed, in my opinion, until the NAC is ready to be voted on by the people. If the wording needs to be improved, that can be done. The NAC, though, is the important thing.

    I won’t go into the other options available to these wicked men in this comment. In my next post on the NAC maybe I will bring this topic up.

    I have never heard of these organizations you mention. I will have to look this stuff up. You, or anyone else, can take on the leadership on this. I have proposed that there be a coalition of different groups, but first the word has to go out, so leadership would definitely be a good thing. I would be available for comment, in a text format, for anyone that wants my input on the NAC. Obviously, I will help this out however I can.

  16. You needn’t worry about the 2 orgs I was once part of. I believe they have disbanded thanks to too much division and strife.

    I can see your point vis a vis your church, given that it has had some folks questioning a multitude of all things LDS. Your staying under the radar is fine for now. I have a feeling that will necessarily change soon.

    Also see your point regarding the Amendment.

    A thought: you are aware that there is a movement out there for an Article V Convention of the States, are you not? Several legislatures have already endorsed it. The Amendment could be proposed there, if it happens. It would also be interesting if it were to pass to then propose the NAC then.

    I’ll see who I can get on board with the idea of just starting a semi-public debate on these issues, and then we’ll go from there.


  17. A thought: you are aware that there is a movement out there for an Article V Convention of the States, are you not? Several legislatures have already endorsed it. The Amendment could be proposed there, if it happens. It would also be interesting if it were to pass to then propose the NAC then.

    I haven’t been following this movement, but I have heard for years about the idea of having another Constitutional Convention, which I suppose is the same as this Convention of the States that you refer to. The problem with such a thing is that it would be a “convention of the States,” as opposed to a gathering of the people, and given that the national government and the State governments are where the centers of power are, and thus, where the “kingmen” and their lobbyists converge, such a convention could only result in a further consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands. In other words, the NAC has no chance in hell to pass in any such convention. It will never happen that way.

    The NAC must be installed by the people alone. They are the only ones who would actually choose to free themselves from these totalitarian kingmen. The States and their representatives are too plugged in to the government teat to choose to lose their benefits. The States must be forced to conform to the will of the people and emasculate themselves of these stolen powers. The amendment + NAC will do this. But the NAC, (if promoted without mentioning the amendment,) will be looked at as just another “pie-in-the-sky” scheme by TPTB and perhaps be ignored by the kingmen, at least at first. Personally, I think the amendment should be pulled from this site altogether and the NAC ought to just be promoted alone, with merely the saying that “something is already prepared to install it.” Or, people ought to take the text of the NAC from this site and then put up the NAC on other sites, so that nobody (except the NAC leadership) actually knows where in the heck the NAC comes from, or where it originated from. Promotion of the NAC should be done by strategy because these kingmen will do EVERYTHING in their power to stop this once it gets going.

    Now, these are my beliefs, and I might be wrong, but I think the NAC has a real chance to be jump started in a major way. For example, the southern States that were a part of the Confederate States of America, according to my understanding, are still VERY MUCH upset over the result of The War Between The States (Civil War.) So, the States of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky are possibly already primed to accept the NAC EN MASSE. A Council of Fifty can be established, one person heading the NAC-coalition in each State, with one of the Council being the president. The 13 councilmembers that head the NAC-promotion efforts over these 13 States, though, would have, perhaps, an easier time in promoting the NAC in their respective States. Every State has its own, particular, special interest, that the NAC may directly address. For example, the 13 southern States are obsessed with secession, so that is what should be promoted. The NAC allows States to GET OUT OF IT if they want to. They won’t have to FIGHT THEIR WAY OUT. This may be a very appealing message to these people. If the people of these 13 States suddenly are all pro-NAC, this will bring immediate national attention to the NAC. It will instantly be a national discourse. Each of the other councilmembers, then, will just tailor the NAC message to the people of their States. For example, if the people of one State are concerned about gun rights being taken away under the USC, then gun rights under the NAC is what should be promoted, and so on and so forth. All these things can, possibly, put the NAC on the scene quite rapidly.

    My eldest son asked me, after I wrote the NAC, “Father, how long will it take before the NAC can become law?” I told him, “If it is diligently and wisely promoted, I’d say between 2 or 3 years.” He was disappointed at this news. He thought this was a really long time. He had wanted the NAC to become law in the next couple of months. Now, to an adult, if I said such a response, the adult would respond with disbelief, saying, “It is impossible to install this thing so rapidly.” My son has a believing heart (like me) and sees the response as too long a time, while the unbelieving heart sees the response as too short a time.

    The truth of the matter is that the time, whether long or short, is not the actual variable. Time has nothing to do with it. Only belief does. The more people that believe, the shorter the time it takes; the more people that disbelieve, the longer the time it takes.

    The general consensus is that the American people are apathetic, but this is a mistaken belief. Americans are NOT apathetic, Americans are uninspired. If you inspire the American people, they will move into action. There are two things that will inspire Americans. 1) An inspiring law. The Bill of Rights is just such a law. It was written under the spirit of inspiration and inspires both Americans and foreigners. The NAC, I believe, is another such law. This is why I believe that when people read the NAC, they will feel inspired and start to have hope again for the future and will begin to imagine what life will be like under the NAC. Most everyone who does this will then want to promote the NAC.

    2) An inspiring leader. A charismatic leader can inspire people to action, even if the principles he espouses ARE FALSE. Adolf Hitler inspired his people with crap principles. They wanted hope for the future, and he gave it to them, but they built their house on sand. The best strategy, then, is to do BOTH THINGS. You start with correct principles, an inspiring law (the NAC) and then you make sure that the men and women you have out there promoting it are also inspiring. This will create a bombshell of hope among the people. They will burst wide awake and take control of their future (under the NAC.) But you’ve got to start with something radical, something that completely changes conditions among men, and the NAC does just that.

    Another strategy is to use the principle found in that Beastie Boys’ song in which they chant, “No sleep ’til Brooklyn!” over and over again. Or, that one movie by those two comedians in which all they wanted to do was get to White Castle to get some hamburgers, come hell or high-water. The promoters must “hold the nation hostage,” to put the NAC in as law. It is exceedingly easy to bring this whole nation to its very knees. By nation, I mean those who will oppose the NAC. Now, I speak as an anarchist, so I’m not opposed to using methods that will cause major disruption among society. And these would be lawful means. My son wants this thing done in a few months. Technically, it can be done by the end of this year. My point is, though, that if those who promote the NAC REALLY want this as the law as fast as possible, there are ways to make it happen.

    Anyway, you can email me if you want any further suggestions. Just use the contact form at the right of the blog. Also, I can put your name and contact information in the LDS freedom forum as the person spear-heading the promotion of the NAC and can invite any Mormons there to contact you and work with you, under your leadership, if you want. Some Mormons believe that the latter-day saints will fulfill a role in restoring the Republic to greatness, so they may take the bait and help you out in this. Let me know if you want me to drop your name and any contact information there.

  18. Okay, I looked that movie up. It’s “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle.” And the Beastie Boys song was titled the same as the lyric (“No Sleep ‘Till Brooklyn.”) Anyway, the point is that single-mindedness, diligence, indefatigableness (and also wisdom) will push the NAC forward into the view of the whole society, and the people will respond in kind, for they are looking for something to unite them, some kind of banner under which we all can gather, and when unyielding drive is beheld, the type that doesn’t allow anything to get in the way of its objective, it is natural for people to want to be a part of that.

    The phrase, “divide and conquer,” really does apply to America today. Americans are so split on so very many issues today and they will often argue on the smallest and most insignificant of points, taking a stand on them while discarding the larger, more important things in which there is agreement. But I still say that the NAC will unite the American people, because of its tendency to inspire hope in them. I suppose that that theme, (the theme of inspiration), ought to be exploited, too, in favor of the NAC. In other words, NAC gatherings probably ought to be festive events, of celebration and hope, as well as of debate, dialog and discourse. This will draw large crowds. After all, the NAC represents an almost complete liberation of the people from tyranny, and that certainly is cause for celebration.

  19. I think you may have an incorrect interpretation on the convention of the states. If you haven’t already done so, you should get a copy of Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments”, which describes how such a convention should be done. Doing the amendment at such a convention is doing it at the time when the proper chain of delegation of duly constituted lawful authority would not be questioned. This is because the state legislatures will have already given their blessing to the event. To do this in some other way could bring about the American edition of the Arab Spring, which we don’t need. We have to be conscious of doing this lawfully, and most importantly, with the duly constituted lawful ENFORCEMENT authority. Without enforcement, there is nothing but trouble.

    I am looking toward taking some kind of leadership role on this, but before I can do that, I need to make sure that I have the proper backup with me, in terms of people with the skills and knowledge to bring this to fruition. I can do this if I bring in some folks from my old groups, and probably many from your connections as well. I am prepared to do that. I will not attempt this flying solo. That would be foolish.

    Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.


  20. Truly I have not been following what is happening with the Convention of States, and you may be right that I’m totally off in my views. My anarchical distrust of government paints the States just as bad as the national government, or, at least, as wannabe bad, meaning that if they had the chance at claiming the broad powers of the national government, they’d go for it. So, a Convention of States will, in my distrustful view, produce something like the “Constitution for the Newstates of America” or some other abomination.

    My understanding of things in government is that many of the laws, which laws I will call “conspiracy laws,” are already written, and these conspirators are merely waiting for an opportunity to introduce these laws (which have previously been written.) When an event happens that pertains to that law, there will be a clamor, “There ought to be a law for this!” and voila!, there appears a fully written law for that, which, unknown to the people, had been written years earlier. Or, if the event doesn’t happen on its own, a false flag will be caused, to make the event “happen.” At all times, the agenda is promoted so that the conditions are created that requires the law. So, a Convention of the States on the surface sounds good, but to me, with my understanding as it is, it merely seems like an opportunity for these conspirators to take all these conspiring laws and make them reality immediately, in secret, without the people even knowing about it, until it is done.

  21. Oh, yeah, and I posted an announcement on the LDS freedom forum that you are spearheading the promotion of the NAC, but I didn’t give your email address. People will have to private message me and if they do, I’ll give them your email address. So, we’ll see if there is anyone there who is interested.

  22. They do have those laws written. Both have either been authorized and signed into law or re-authorized. The Patriot Act and the various NDAA since the Civil War.

  23. That is fine. I hope I can bring some of my guys in as well.

  24. Okay, so looking up about the Convention of the States, I came up with this web site:

    So, anyone that wants to learn more about it can use the link above.

  25. That’ll work.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s